PURPOSE: Patients with persistent elevated PSA and repeated negative prostate biopsy, that means having the prostate biopsied at multiple times, were investigated with 18F-choline PET/CT to delineate prostate cancer and guide renewed prostate biopsy. METHODS: Twenty patients with elevated PSA and negative prostate biopsies underwent 18F-choline PET/CT. We performed an early examination of the pelvic region 3-5 min after application. After 30 minutes a whole body PET/CT examination was performed. Image analysis was performed visually and by semi-quantitative analysis calculating the maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax). 18F-choline uptake was defined as focal, multifocal or inhomogeneous. After the 18F-choline PET/CT, all patients underwent a repeated prostate biopsy, and in the cases where a focal or multifocal uptake was found, the biopsy was guided by the result of the examination. RESULTS: Qualitative image analysis revealed focal 18F-choline uptake in 13 out of 20 patients. In five patients, prostate cancer was revealed by repeated aspiration biopsy. None of the patients with a multifocal or inhomogeneous 18F-choline uptake had a malignant neoplasm in the prostate. Semiquantitative analysis performed with SUVmax was not helpful in the discrimination of malignancy but showed high values also in benign prostate diseases, as well as in normal prostate tissue. The dual-phase protocol delivered no clear benefit in discriminating malignancy from benign alterations. CONCLUSION: The use of 18F-choline cannot be generally recommended for localising prostate cancer; however, in highly selected patients, we found useful additional information. In 25% of patients, 18F-choline PET/CT allowed the identification of neoplastic prostatic zones.
PURPOSE:Patients with persistent elevated PSA and repeated negative prostate biopsy, that means having the prostate biopsied at multiple times, were investigated with 18F-choline PET/CT to delineate prostate cancer and guide renewed prostate biopsy. METHODS: Twenty patients with elevated PSA and negative prostate biopsies underwent 18F-choline PET/CT. We performed an early examination of the pelvic region 3-5 min after application. After 30 minutes a whole body PET/CT examination was performed. Image analysis was performed visually and by semi-quantitative analysis calculating the maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax). 18F-choline uptake was defined as focal, multifocal or inhomogeneous. After the 18F-choline PET/CT, all patients underwent a repeated prostate biopsy, and in the cases where a focal or multifocal uptake was found, the biopsy was guided by the result of the examination. RESULTS: Qualitative image analysis revealed focal 18F-choline uptake in 13 out of 20 patients. In five patients, prostate cancer was revealed by repeated aspiration biopsy. None of the patients with a multifocal or inhomogeneous 18F-choline uptake had a malignant neoplasm in the prostate. Semiquantitative analysis performed with SUVmax was not helpful in the discrimination of malignancy but showed high values also in benign prostate diseases, as well as in normal prostate tissue. The dual-phase protocol delivered no clear benefit in discriminating malignancy from benign alterations. CONCLUSION: The use of 18F-choline cannot be generally recommended for localising prostate cancer; however, in highly selected patients, we found useful additional information. In 25% of patients, 18F-choline PET/CT allowed the identification of neoplastic prostatic zones.
Authors: Bernhard Scher; Michael Seitz; Wolfram Albinger; Reinhold Tiling; Michael Scherr; Hans-Christoph Becker; Michael Souvatzogluou; Franz-Josef Gildehaus; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Stefan Dresel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: T R DeGrado; R E Coleman; S Wang; S W Baldwin; M D Orr; C N Robertson; T J Polascik; D T Price Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Daniel T Schmid; Hubert John; Roland Zweifel; Tibor Cservenyak; Gerrit Westera; Gerhard W Goerres; Gustav K von Schulthess; Thomas F Hany Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Matthias T Wyss; Bruno Weber; Michael Honer; Nicolas Späth; Simon M Ametamey; Gerrit Westera; Beata Bode; Achim H Kaim; Alfred Buck Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-11-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael Souvatzoglou; Matthias Eiber; Toshiki Takei; Sebastian Fürst; Tobias Maurer; Florian Gaertner; Hans Geinitz; Alexander Drzezga; Sibylle Ziegler; Stephan G Nekolla; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: C Sachpekidis; M Eder; K Kopka; W Mier; B A Hadaschik; U Haberkorn; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 9.236